The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order directing payment of ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to a wife, holding that the husband’s responsibility to maintain his wife is not merely a legal obligation but also carries social and moral dimensions.
Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on August 7, 2026, in Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026. The Court found no reason to interfere with the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Background of the Case
The marriage between Sheetal alias Priyanka and Devansh alias Chhotu was solemnised on July 24, 2017, according to Hindu customs. The wife alleged that she was subjected to harassment and physical abuse over demands for additional dowry, including a Swift car and a 100-square-yard plot.
She stated that she had been living at her parental home since April 2, 2018, and was dependent on her aged and financially weak father. She also claimed that her husband had sufficient financial means but had not provided her maintenance. The Family Court, after considering the material before it, awarded ₹20,000 per month from the date of the maintenance application and another ₹20,000 per month from the date of judgment.
Court’s Observation
Justice Achal Sachdev noted that the Family Court had considered whether the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately, whether she could support herself and whether the husband had sufficient means to maintain her.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had rightly concluded that the wife had sufficient reasons to reside separately and that the husband was not maintaining her according to his status.
“The right to maintenance is not a matter of charity, but a statutory right,” the Court remarked, stressing that maintenance is intended to prevent a wife from being pushed into destitution.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bhuvan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, noting that maintenance serves the purpose of social justice and seeks to prevent penury and destitution.
Decision
The High Court further noted that the wife had no independent source of income, while the husband had sufficient means to maintain her. It found the Family Court’s order to be properly reasoned and justified.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Family Court’s March 30, 2024 order did not warrant interference and dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Details
Case Title: Devansh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Achal Sachdev
Decision Date: August 7, 2026
